Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, for this final plenary session, you have finally decided to address microplastic pollution, a crucial issue that affects our environment, our health and our future. This invisible threat represents a challenge that we must face for our generations, but especially for future generations, including our children, who will be the first victims. But when I look back, what has this Commission done during this mandate to reduce its impact? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What has it done to challenge its ultra-liberal policy? Nothing, absolutely nothing. This policy, your policy, has poured millions of tons of microplastics into our oceans. This waste is the end result of ever-increasing overconsumption, ever-increasing unnecessary imports, ever-increasing devastating free trade agreements. It is time to put an end to this totally irresponsible approach and put the protection of our environment at the heart of our priorities. For years, my party in France, the Rassemblement National, has been advocating a policy that is more rooted in the environment. This approach is localism. This vision of the ecology of reality is sorely lacking in this Commission. She refuses these tons of goods produced on the other side of the world by children who are often enslaved. Common sense, but that the technocrats here cannot accept. The choice is therefore clear: Will we continue on the path of blind liberalism, or will we finally embrace a localist, responsible approach that focuses on preserving our planet? We will all have this choice on 9 June by choosing the only list that really cares about the ingrained ecology and that will stop the madness of Brussels and its free trade treaties.

Madam President, millions of Europeans are looking forward to an urgent revision of the European Animal Welfare Act. Every day lost to debate in a vacuum – and sterile for some – prolongs the agony of thousands of sentient living beings, sacrificed on the altar of political neglect. On several occasions, the Europeans have alerted you. The citizens’ initiative demanding the end of cages has garnered 1.4 million signatures, which is historic. So, refusing to respond to this call is a contempt not only for their concerns, but for this democratic process. You claim to defend dignity, but where is dignity when animals are treated as vulgar consumer products? At a meeting of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, Ms Kyriakides admitted that this topic was buried. So should we really be content with the Commission's pitiful response? No, no. Moreover, what about the introduction of a regulation on religious animal welfare labelling? Have you ever seen the unbearable images of ritual slaughter in the name of a religion? I don't think so. So stop this bloody barbarism. Respect for animal dignity should not be an option, but a moral imperative, which we must all honour.

Mr President, Commissioner, twenty years have passed since the European Union made the deplorable choice to put its pseudo-ecology above all else, sacrificing our businesses on the altar of permanent greenwashing. In any brand, we are beset by eco-responsible slogans that sound hollow: "eco-friendly", "zero CO2" or "eco-certified"... Words that resonate in the void and marketing pollution without any purpose. How can consumers make informed choices when all products claim to be the best option for our planet? It is time to put an end to this anarchy of environmental declarations. Every slogan must be supported by concrete actions. The key to this essential transparency is the establishment of an independent body to verify and certify environmental claims. But, of course, this must not be an open door to all attacks on the freedom and prosperity of our businesses, because control obviously does not mean taking hostage. When this text addresses sanctions, you start again in your totally authoritarian drift. The lines of this report are perfectly clear: you want to confiscate a company’s income every time a product is found non-compliant. This measure is completely arbitrary, and nothing, absolutely nothing justifies such a racket. Instead, penalise multinationals instead of constantly draining the turnover of European companies that survive the euro, precisely because of your economic policy. So, no to greenwashing, yes to transparency, but without falling into the trap of gold-plating. It is your duty to strike the right balance between protecting our planet and respecting economic actors.

Mr President, the stock of pharmacies is gradually being emptied and our citizens are tired of having to travel several kilometres to finally find their medicines. It is unacceptable that Europe does not have a proper pharmaceutical industry that protects us all. Your ultra-liberal and anti-social Europe is solely responsible for this situation. The lives of Europeans depend on medical devices, and the certification stage is absolutely essential. Your European bureaucracy must stop drowning our pharmaceutical companies under tons of administrative burdens, in particular to renew these certificates of conformity. The first necessary step is to give industries an additional four years to renew the certification of medical devices. The European pharmaceutical sector has been in crisis for years, your voters have been suffering from a shortage of medicines. We had already proposed these solutions at the beginning of the mandate, but the Europeans will have waited five years for the European Commission to finally make a common sense proposal! Go to the end of the reasoning, and fight to repatriate the production of all the drugs. Give the means of research to our nations so that these products finally improve the lives of our patients. While the world powers are increasingly rising in their health and social management, our continent is becoming a third world. The more years pass, the more Europe is unworthy of its health policy. So act at least with the same energy as you deploy to get your environmental texts completely disconnected!

Mr President, while our farmers are running out of breath in the face of foreign production, farmers are alerting us to the importance of protected geographical indications. Without PGIs, Europe will not be able to fight the increasingly aggressive and totally unfair competition from the rest of the world. The survival of our wines, our spirit drinks and much of our agriculture in general depends on this regulation. PGIs are proof that protectionism works. They play a crucial role in preserving the cultural diversity, tradition and authenticity of the products. It is thanks to this legal protection production that consumers around the world can distinguish between low-end products developed in a totally industrial way, without any environmental standards for that matter, and our products that are the pride of Europeans. But this morning, when you voted for the nature restoration regulation, you again betrayed the trust of farmers. Support our producers, support our rich heritage and know-how, French know-how, of course. And of course, support our farmers in the face of industrial groups!

Mr President, Abbé Pierre made history with his humanism. A staunch defender of the poorest, he has always fought against poverty and social exclusion, a noble struggle that must continue to inspire us. But what would he say today when he saw that almost 900 000 people sleep every night on the streets in the European Union? What would he say when he saw that this shameful figure has only increased in the last five years? How can we not blame French President Emmanuel Macron for the betrayal of his campaign argument, which he had promised to solve the homeless problem during his term? How can we not turn to our governments when shelters cannot benefit citizens because they are saturated by migratory waves? With 400,000 migrants entering France every year – 400,000! –, we call for the national priority to apply for access to social housing. Places must now first benefit nationals before being allocated to foreigners, who may have entered illegally. The European Union has a duty to care for its citizens as a matter of priority, not to distribute public goods to the public at large.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are facing an unprecedented water crisis. The drought of summer 2023 has had a lasting impact on our farmers. Did you hear them in front of this Parliament? In any case, I hope so. They can no longer cope with climatic hazards while applying the painful European constraints. It is therefore high time for Europe to adopt a water strategy worthy of the name, which is not only punitive but pragmatic and responsible. Europeans are tired of your variable geometry ambition: unlimited ambition when it comes to sanctioning and low ambition when it comes to investing in the long term for technologies of the future. Technology and ecology are not opposing forces, on the contrary: invest heavily in cutting-edge innovations for seawater desalination and wastewater reuse. It is imperative for our future to establish advanced processing systems to recover and reuse these valuable resources, especially in crucial sectors of agriculture and industry. You have proven this by unlocking €50 billion for Ukraine, €50 billion: the funds are available, so act!

Mr President, Commissioner, as our farmers stand before this Parliament to demonstrate their right to live decently, you are setting totally delusional targets for the next twenty years. Stop pretending that by acting alone for the rest of the world, the European Union will have any influence on the climate. Thanks to the sacrifices of our people, European countries have already achieved carbon budgets that are far more virtuous than those of the rest of the world. What about China and what about the United States? Three years ago, however, we were already debating the 2030 targets. We had clearly warned you against popular anger, against end-to-end motorists, against farmers who can no longer live off their work and against our industrial weakening. And three years later, here's the result: The auto industries have turned down revenue standards, and farmers are on the streets and rejecting your punitive and totally disconnected ideology. You have acted against the European people, in the sole interest of your European bubble. Polls show beyond a shadow of a doubt that this ideology will be sanctioned at the polls. Today, you only have one option: leave it to your constituents. So assume your choices totally insane.

Madam President, this may be linked to current events in Europe, but here we are, finally, in this Parliament, looking at the profoundly unfair competition that other countries are exerting on our economy. On solar energy, as in many other areas, our industries are weakened by stifling administrative burdens and totally uncontrolled competition at our borders. At the end of each month, our businesses, farmers and craftsmen see the indecent rise in energy prices. Shops are closing, and bills are precipitating French households, especially the middle classes, towards a totally dramatic impoverishment. It is therefore common sense to take strict measures to protect our manufacturers. In all areas, let us demand that our European producers know the same standards as the products that are dumped on our continent through free trade agreements signed here. On the production of electricity, let us recall another evidence: only nuclear energy will guarantee us a massive supply that respects the planet. Only nuclear energy will allow us to relaunch our industries – finally! To rebuild a powerful economy on the ruins you left behind, let's get out of the renewable cult and finally capitalize on our global nuclear advantage.

Mr President, Commissioner, last month Europe witnessed another maritime disaster. Thousands of plastic pellets were dispersed in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Spain. This is not a new phenomenon, as 230 000 tonnes of microbeads end up in the environment every year, and Europe alone accounts for two thirds of this pollution. So yes, the European Union bears an overwhelming responsibility by turning a blind eye to the disasters of its totally unbridled free trade policy. And let us not rely on left-wing groups that instrumentalize these subjects solely for electoral purposes. At a time of trade clashes between China and the United States, tensions in the Middle East or in the Red Sea, we are once again paying a very high price for our dependence on the rest of the world. Acting for reindustrialisation means acting not only for European citizens and their purchasing power, but also for the environment and sovereignty. The same mistakes cause the same consequences. So it's time to change the paradigm.

Mr President, Commissioner, when it comes to ecology in this Parliament, the equation is always the same: impose a decided policy in Brussels without ever carrying out an impact assessment and leaving consumers to suffer the price increase. Every crisis is compounded by the absurd decisions taken by this majority. When companies face your administrative and economic constraints, it is the consumers who pay the price. And it is obviously the competitors of third countries who take the opportunity to replace European goods with goods produced at a discount, without any environmental standard. We are all in favour of adopting sustainable practices. It would even be time to get started, after decades of cult of free trade without borders. But acting directly on consumers is trying to resuscitate agonising growth, and so it is proof of your failure to support our businesses. You have turned Europe into a continent that no longer produces and sells. So finally put an end to your above-ground liberal vision and listen to those who, like us, propose an economic model based on localism and common sense.

Mr President, since the debate on the ozone layer in the 1990s, the European Union has asked professionals to phase out a whole bunch of fluorinated gases. This replacement with more or less reliable alternatives has been a real ordeal because they are essential for heat equipment, refrigeration units or aerosols. But let's face it, these policies have worked. Chlorine-based fluorinated gases, these inefficient and polluting gases, have been removed to make chlorine-free gases more efficient and much cleaner. The degradation of the ozone layer has also been greatly reduced. So we had a balance in Europe: we used chlorine-free gases, favouring both the environment and households. In addition, these chlorine-free gases are particularly effective in a continent that is in great need of energy security. But this balance, you want to destroy it. You are asking today to completely ban these chlorine-free gases to achieve your permanent zero pollution utopia. A logic that will benefit neither the environment nor citizens. You made this decision without studying the impacts, which is once again proof of your ignorance of the industrial realities of our continent. Professionals warn you about the lack of a serious alternative, but you turn a deaf ear. So what solutions do you have for heat pumps, for heating, cooling, refrigerated transport and everything else? Obviously nothing. Once again, it is professionals and users who will pay the price for this transition. The end of the mandate is fast approaching, so some political groups are rushing and relentlessly pushing through their latest anti-social and anti-industrial measures as soon as possible. This obsession is proof that this system of self lives its last months and it is so much the better.

Mr President, our fellow citizens see COP28 in Dubai as a gigantic farce and I understand them. Turning to the fact that they are organised in a petromonarchy with a ridiculously high carbon footprint, these worldly environmental dinners cannot be a credible response to climate challenges. This conference, supposedly on climate, has mainly served as a venue for international negotiations to resolve the military crisis in the Middle East. While ecology is a matter of measurement, of limits, of borders, the European Union and the globalists make it a means of centralization in favor of the global, the borderless and the monopolies. While ecology is a matter of common sense and cooperation, disconnected technocrats make it a crusade against everyday workers. Once again, European citizens will be alone to bear the burden of the climate fight, while the carbon footprint of our continent is insignificant. And once again, it will be the weakest who will have to take on the efforts to combat the harmful effects of your policy. So for the good of the planet, let's stop these grotesque and expensive COPs and finally change the paradigm.

Madam President, Europeans are deeply aware of the danger to pollinators, a key element of our biodiversity, which is necessary for the reproduction of crops and the maintenance of botanical diversity. But this danger is not new. Excessive use of pesticides, loss of natural habitats and climate change pose great risks to the natural balance of many regions. The victims of this imbalance are also our farmers, because pollination largely determines agricultural yields. This text shows this well: your approach is still marked by a disconnected, inapplicable ideology, which responds to the logic of the number alone. Before piling up bureaucratic rules and utopian goals, let us already catch up on the search for new technologies. In France, agronomic research has made it possible to develop varieties that are more resistant to pests and droughts. Agriculture is therefore not condemned to destroy pollinators, quite the contrary. Put in place tax incentives for those already adopting environmentally friendly practices and minimise excessive and inapplicable accumulations of measures. Saving pollinators means saving agriculture and thus ensuring our food security for all. This text, the whole of our delegation, supports it because the situation is critical. But we call for a much more realistic approach that finally trusts the work of our farmers.

Mr President, Commissioner, you are no longer even hiding your delusional goal of switching to 100% electric for both heavy goods vehicles and cars, and it does not matter if the news warns us every day about the dangers of this utopian choice. You are locking up the transport sector in a one-way street, in defiance of the freedom of the market that you constantly defend. The choice of the "all-electric" for cars was already disconnected from industrial, environmental and economic realities. But making this choice for heavyweights shows your profound ignorance of how this industry works. An electric truck now costs €300,000, three times more than the same diesel truck. Its maintenance is also three times more expensive. So go tell the transport companies that they will have to switch to "all electric" in 15 years.... This choice is also an ecological contradiction. You are making us dependent on the global supply of lithium and cobalt, extracted in ultra-polluting conditions on the other side of the world, and I would remind you, exploiting child labour. It is totally disgusting! In short, wanting to shift pollution from our cities to the Third World does not make you environmentalists or humanists.

Mr President, let us be clear: The Euro 7 bill is simply unsustainable. The Commission requires manufacturers to invest heavily to ensure that thermal engines comply with ever-higher standards. Yet, these same manufacturers have already invested billions to switch to all electric in 2025 under your injunction. So what you are asking manufacturers is contradictory and the striking example of total disconnection from the world of industry. Worse still, and you know it very well, these efforts will blow up the price of vehicles, which will simply remove affordable vehicles from the market. Result: small towns, once accessible at EUR 10 000, now cost three times as much. Under the pretext of ecology, you are therefore reinforcing inequalities and deepening the social divide. Member States have already sent a yellow card to this text. This should alert you. Listen to builders, nations and motorists. Stop unfairly penalizing the most vulnerable in our society and finally stop endangering our automotive industry.

Madam President, Commissioner, all the polls show this: The cruelty of animal fur production has led to the almost unanimous rejection of Europeans. This debate is of paramount importance for the respect of animal rights, but also for the millions of Europeans who signed the Fur-Free Europe initiative. The images, unbearable, expose the daily atrocity represented by this sector: life in captivity, injury in cages, cases of cannibalism, so many phenomena that must finally be relegated to the past. The barbaric fur industry has profited enough from animal suffering. As you are so committed to protecting the environment, do not forget that natural fur has an environmental impact that is ten times more harmful than synthetic fur. Commissioner, go to the end of this initiative, attach importance to this crucial issue and finally propose a ban on animal fur altogether.

Madam President, in ten years, the number of child pornography content has increased by 6 000 %. Fifteen years of democratised access to the Internet have not eliminated online child crime. On the contrary, it always threatens our children. And even as I speak to you, sexual predators are camouflaged on popular platforms like TikTok, to name but a few. Passing themselves off as teenagers, they manipulate our children, earn their trust and ultimately inspire them to share intimate images. With the proliferation of social networks, this scourge has spread insidiously. It is therefore time to take concrete action. We need to strengthen cross-border collaboration between law enforcement and child protection associations. Monitoring and regulating the Internet requires increased cooperation with content providers who have a clear responsibility for signalling deviant content. With 750,000 predators currently plaguing the internet, it is imperative to act swiftly, decisively and decisively to protect our children from these sex offenders.

Mr. Speaker, the ability to manage wastewater is one of the hallmarks of a developed society. Conversely, as soon as this capacity deteriorates, our entire urban, health and ecological environment is threatened. Wastewater contains pollutants, toxic chemicals and increases antibiotic resistance. Our processing power must therefore be strengthened each year without cutting back on budgets, in proportion to the increase in these polluting substances. That is why we must put forward our entire technological system and political power must strengthen research without any compromise. Through research, modern management practices have significantly improved our wastewater treatment capabilities. Processes such as filtration, decanting and advanced oxidation effectively remove contaminants while recovering valuable resources such as energy and nutrients. During the COVID pandemic, we asked for wastewater monitoring to obtain key data on the presence of certain viruses. Without a perfect knowledge of our wastewater, the political power will not be able to put in place coherent measures. In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm our support for the inhabitants of the French overseas territories who are suffering from catastrophic water management by Emmanuel Macron's French government. I would also point out that the parliamentary majority here has refused, out of pure sectarianism, to add a debate on the current critical situation in the overseas departments. It's a real shame. So count on us so that everywhere, in every metropolitan territory or overseas, the French have access to drinking water.

Mr President, Commissioner, you are asking us today to give a blank for a decade on a product whose health consequences for consumers and farmers are still debated, because the studies are all contradictory. If dependence on this product prevents us from applying a firm precautionary principle, we cannot leave such latitude to a substance and its adjuvants that are sometimes more toxic than glyphosate itself. A majority of farmers want to get out of the chemical at all. Only the violence advocated by environmental extremists is suicidal. To stop glyphosate today is to sign the death warrant for several strategic sectors of our agriculture and directly threaten our food sovereignty. At the same time, we are multiplying free trade treaties with the whole world, the same world that associates GMOs and glyphosate dumped excessively. Extremism is a dead end of the mind. Let's refuse it, whether it's green or ultraliberal. That the Commission therefore renews its authorisation, but over five years and not over ten years, and that it above all offers the means of a realistic alternative for farmers and, of course, for our health. That it adheres to strict monitoring and effective support in the search for alternatives, as with the Horizon laser soil treatment project. The EIB must also implement bank loan guarantees for innovative investments resulting from agricultural research. And finally, let's review the authorization regulations. Let's develop an independent counter-expertise system. Let us free ourselves from agrochemical companies and seed companies that have a monopoly on world food. So to date, of course, we can't do anything other than use glyphosate. But we cannot be satisfied with this situation. We have been part of a great agricultural civilization for two millennia, so let us remain so as a Europe of new technologies.

Madam President, Commissioner, water conservation is a major issue, essential to all forms of life on our planet. Water must be preserved and the issue of pollution of groundwater, oceans and rivers must be addressed seriously. But as always, this Parliament accumulates punitive standards for our companies without ever taking into account the reality on the ground. While our farmers suffer from climatic conditions and inflation, environmental standards must be reasonable and adapted to local specificities. Europe is the continent of excellence and innovation. Let us give ourselves the means to succeed on this subject instead of suffocating economic actors under ever more stringent standards. In opposition to your punitive Europe, we call for a Europe of nations that fosters collaboration between states to combat transboundary pollution. It is through common sense cooperation that we can effectively tackle pollution. The protection of water and the preservation of our environment must not come at the expense of our economy and our farmers. If we want a sustainable future for future generations, it is imperative to work together.

Mr President, rapporteur, the European Commission and the left-wing groups have accustomed us to economic and political nonsense when it comes to the Green Deal. But this proposal has reached an unparalleled level of absurdity, disconnection and contempt for our farmers and Member States. Worse yet, this time the Commission directly threatened to retaliate Members who legitimately requested an impact assessment on our food production. Where is Mr Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Green Deal, defending this important text? Apparently, he does not assume his scandalous and undemocratic attitude. As we face an impending food crisis, you persist in your utopian chimeras, sacrificing our producers on the altar of your ideological and ecological fantasies. Why do you want to get involved in Member States' urban policies? The greening of our cities is certainly a good thing and brings many benefits, but it is up to the states and local elected representatives to take these decisions and certainly not to a Commission that thinks it has the exclusivity of all policies. I would also like to remind you that forests are the responsibility of nations. The binding targets imposed by the European Commission therefore have no legitimacy. While this text has been rejected in all three committees, left-wing groups, in defiance of democracy, are trying to resurrect it with plenary amendments. The rejection of this text must be final in order to send a clear message to the European Commission and therefore to the left groups. So yes to preserving the nature of our heritage and our agricultural lands. And not to this absurd and oppressive proposal of the European Commission. It is high time you stopped harming our farmers and our Member States, in the name of your ideological whims.

Madam President, before turning to the issue of recycling electric batteries, I would point out that the production of these batteries depends entirely on scarce resources, the extraction of which is a real environmental and humanitarian disaster. Yesterday, this Parliament celebrated World Day Against Child Labour. What irony, and above all, what hypocrisy, when this same Parliament votes overwhelmingly to impose the "all-electric", which exploits children in mines! At a time when the European Union is giving lessons to the whole world, it is imperative to remember that this industry is closely linked to slavery, but above all to the work of these children. Second problem: How do you want to build an efficient recycling industry in Europe after massively deindustrialising our continent? Your goal of recycling 100% of battery components is totally unattainable without a profound challenge to your business model. This text therefore arrives far too late and it reflects your inability to anticipate the result of your choices.

Mr President, it was time for the European Union to address methane pollution. While our institutions let off steam on motorists, responsible according to them for all the misfortunes of the world, methane pollution has remained under the radar for far too long. We are therefore in favour of certain measures, in particular all those which protect the citizen against industrial leakage. But your bill puts our industries at risk. As our companies' bills skyrocket, administrative burdens are always heavier and competition from third countries is more stifling than ever. In this text, however, you propose aberrant measures, it must be said. You want imports of essential materials, such as coal, gas and oil, to be covered by the new legislation. Instead of helping European industry, you are adding new administrative burdens and burdens to the sectors that are at the forefront of ensuring our energy autonomy. So, let's remember, our companies are by far the most virtuous in the world. Let us remind Europeans that, before being polluting industries, they are essential actors for the survival of our continent. Here's what's missing from your text: more support and less constraints, much less constraints. Our strategic industries are at an end. If you do not act to protect them, they will eventually leave our continent permanently.

Madam President, Commissioner, this report, which marks the end of the combustion engine in 2035, is the most vivid example of the total disconnection between European elites and our citizens. It also cuts off any initiative for car manufacturers, locking them into an "all-electric" logic, which will benefit neither consumers nor the environment. These new standards, which are particularly burdensome for our industries, will not change the climate, and you know that very well. Your doctrine, which consists of measuring only pollution at the exit of the exhaust pipes, is an ecological imposture. This makes it possible to hide under the carpet all the pollution linked to the extraction of rare metals, necessary for the design of the batteries, but, obviously, it suits you well. Worse still: in countries such as Congo, this extraction is made possible by the massive use of child labour, many of them dying because of landslides or deplorable health conditions. This lack of humanity, sir, is to be vomited. So your selfish project is to shift pollution from city centers to the Third World. So reject this text, relaunch innovation on hydrogen and synthetic gasoline, and stop constantly making motorists the scapegoat for the green transition.